Anonymous
02/27/2024 20:29
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
LOL. "Speculating."
I liked this interaction about his "speculation:"
“Why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started?” Sadow asked.
“I have no answer for that,” Bradley said.
“Except for the fact that you do in fact know when it started, and you don’t wanna testify to that in court,” Sadow said. “That’s the best explanation.”
Or this one:
“Mr. Bradley, ‘speculation’ is kind of a weaselly lawyer word. Let's speak truth here and you’re under oath,” defense attorney Richard Rice said at one point after Bradley again used the word.
Or this one:
In one testy exchange, Richard Rice, an attorney for defendant Robert Cheeley, asked Bradley whether “as a normal course of your relationship with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends?”
“Have I passed on lies about my friends, is that what you’re asking?” Bradley responded.
“Is that something you normally do, Mr. Bradley?” Rice said. "Do you tell lies about your friends?”
Bradley responded: “Have I told lies about my friends? I could have. I don’t know.”
“Do you pass on lies about your friends in a case of national importance?” Rice pushed.
Bradley repeated, “I could have. I don’t know.”
His testimony was a disaster. The defense presented him with texts that he had sent indicating that the affair "absolutely" began before Willis hired Wade. And, he claimed ignorance.
The judge saw through his lack of candor. And, had little patience for the repeated "objections" from the state attorneys.
Anyone with eyes and ears knows what happened.... he knew their relationship began long before Fani and Nathan testified it did, indicated that to Merchant via texts and conversations, but was trying desperately to cover his tracks.
The judge is not dumb.
his testimony was a disaster for the people trying to prove something amiss. Literally have nothing.
His testimony also showed those watching and listening who he really is..
Anonymous
02/27/2024 20:07
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It really doesn’t matter if Wade is removed from the case, and I would expect he will resign at this point.
It really doesn’t matter.
Does he have to return the 700K USD? If not, what a coup for him
Is the state returning the work product? No.
Then … no.
Anonymous
02/27/2024 20:05
Subject: GA Case
Wouldn't it be extra funny if these three set up the defense just so that they would dig in a make fools of themselves? Like Obama did by holding onto his birth certificate until after Trump built the birther fantasy up into a whole religion?
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:52
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous wrote:It really doesn’t matter if Wade is removed from the case, and I would expect he will resign at this point.
It really doesn’t matter.
Does he have to return the 700K USD? If not, what a coup for him
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:39
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous wrote:It really doesn’t matter if Wade is removed from the case, and I would expect he will resign at this point.
It really doesn’t matter.
If Wade is removed, Willis should also be removed. Especially since it is appearing that she lied under oath. A no-no for anyone, but especially a prosecutor who is charging others with making false statements.
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:35
Subject: GA Case
It really doesn’t matter if Wade is removed from the case, and I would expect he will resign at this point.
It really doesn’t matter.
It really doesn’t matter.
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:32
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
LOL. "Speculating."
I liked this interaction about his "speculation:"
“Why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started?” Sadow asked.
“I have no answer for that,” Bradley said.
“Except for the fact that you do in fact know when it started, and you don’t wanna testify to that in court,” Sadow said. “That’s the best explanation.”
Or this one:
“Mr. Bradley, ‘speculation’ is kind of a weaselly lawyer word. Let's speak truth here and you’re under oath,” defense attorney Richard Rice said at one point after Bradley again used the word.
Or this one:
In one testy exchange, Richard Rice, an attorney for defendant Robert Cheeley, asked Bradley whether “as a normal course of your relationship with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends?”
“Have I passed on lies about my friends, is that what you’re asking?” Bradley responded.
“Is that something you normally do, Mr. Bradley?” Rice said. "Do you tell lies about your friends?”
Bradley responded: “Have I told lies about my friends? I could have. I don’t know.”
“Do you pass on lies about your friends in a case of national importance?” Rice pushed.
Bradley repeated, “I could have. I don’t know.”
His testimony was a disaster. The defense presented him with texts that he had sent indicating that the affair "absolutely" began before Willis hired Wade. And, he claimed ignorance.
The judge saw through his lack of candor. And, had little patience for the repeated "objections" from the state attorneys.
Anyone with eyes and ears knows what happened.... he knew their relationship began long before Fani and Nathan testified it did, indicated that to Merchant via texts and conversations, but was trying desperately to cover his tracks.
The judge is not dumb.
his testimony was a disaster for the people trying to prove something amiss. Literally have nothing.
Keep telling yourself that. But, when the judge makes a decision to remove one or both of them from the case, I promise not to come back and say, "Told you so."
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:30
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous wrote:
LOL. "Speculating."
I liked this interaction about his "speculation:"
“Why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started?” Sadow asked.
“I have no answer for that,” Bradley said.
“Except for the fact that you do in fact know when it started, and you don’t wanna testify to that in court,” Sadow said. “That’s the best explanation.”
Or this one:
“Mr. Bradley, ‘speculation’ is kind of a weaselly lawyer word. Let's speak truth here and you’re under oath,” defense attorney Richard Rice said at one point after Bradley again used the word.
Or this one:
In one testy exchange, Richard Rice, an attorney for defendant Robert Cheeley, asked Bradley whether “as a normal course of your relationship with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends?”
“Have I passed on lies about my friends, is that what you’re asking?” Bradley responded.
“Is that something you normally do, Mr. Bradley?” Rice said. "Do you tell lies about your friends?”
Bradley responded: “Have I told lies about my friends? I could have. I don’t know.”
“Do you pass on lies about your friends in a case of national importance?” Rice pushed.
Bradley repeated, “I could have. I don’t know.”
His testimony was a disaster. The defense presented him with texts that he had sent indicating that the affair "absolutely" began before Willis hired Wade. And, he claimed ignorance.
The judge saw through his lack of candor. And, had little patience for the repeated "objections" from the state attorneys.
Anyone with eyes and ears knows what happened.... he knew their relationship began long before Fani and Nathan testified it did, indicated that to Merchant via texts and conversations, but was trying desperately to cover his tracks.
The judge is not dumb.
his testimony was a disaster for the people trying to prove something amiss. Literally have nothing.
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:29
Subject: GA Case
Why was he gossiping so much with Merchant? I missed that, I guess?
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:24
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Did you watch it? He IS lying!
Do you so, so, so want this sideshow to mean something that you won't accept any testimony the doesn't support your thesis?
He has such a poor memory.
They’re trying to put words in his mouth, and he’s not playing along.
This Bradley testimony is a shitshow for the defense.
It may be. It also lets observers realize the degree of incompetence of some attorneys.
The defense attorneys are the ones looking incompetent.
The person who signed the affidavit about the CallHawk data did not testify today, or was it this morning?
I think the defense attorneys did a great job at making Bradley squirm. The judge saw it. The judge wasn't born yesterday.
And, as for the bolded.... the judge has to decide whether the cell phone data will be allowed to be submitted. After today, I believe the odds of allowing it in go up considerably.
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:22
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Fani is arrogant, prideful, dishonest and thinks she can talk publicly about getting Trump off the ballot, at a church full of hatred, she needs to step down and be erased from the Bar of Georgia never to serve publicly again - shameful.
She is my hero. A strong educated Black woman that racist conservatives fear so much they are desperately trying to smear her with anything in the hope that something sticks. It won't. She will win!
She'll move on and get a cushy contributor job on MSNBC for a while until she shows bad judgment again in that job.
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:19
Subject: GA Case
LOL. "Speculating."
I liked this interaction about his "speculation:"
“Why would you speculate when she was asking you a direct question about when the relationship started?” Sadow asked.
“I have no answer for that,” Bradley said.
“Except for the fact that you do in fact know when it started, and you don’t wanna testify to that in court,” Sadow said. “That’s the best explanation.”
Or this one:
“Mr. Bradley, ‘speculation’ is kind of a weaselly lawyer word. Let's speak truth here and you’re under oath,” defense attorney Richard Rice said at one point after Bradley again used the word.
Or this one:
In one testy exchange, Richard Rice, an attorney for defendant Robert Cheeley, asked Bradley whether “as a normal course of your relationship with your friends, do you pass on lies about your friends?”
“Have I passed on lies about my friends, is that what you’re asking?” Bradley responded.
“Is that something you normally do, Mr. Bradley?” Rice said. "Do you tell lies about your friends?”
Bradley responded: “Have I told lies about my friends? I could have. I don’t know.”
“Do you pass on lies about your friends in a case of national importance?” Rice pushed.
Bradley repeated, “I could have. I don’t know.”
His testimony was a disaster. The defense presented him with texts that he had sent indicating that the affair "absolutely" began before Willis hired Wade. And, he claimed ignorance.
The judge saw through his lack of candor. And, had little patience for the repeated "objections" from the state attorneys.
Anyone with eyes and ears knows what happened.... he knew their relationship began long before Fani and Nathan testified it did, indicated that to Merchant via texts and conversations, but was trying desperately to cover his tracks.
The judge is not dumb.
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:16
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous wrote:Hey MAGA’s!
Have you caught on yet? We’ve been at this for a few years now.
Durham…
The Kraken cases about election integrity…
Biden impeachment…
And now this…
The headlines you are fed on right wing media never seem to hold up in court.
Have you figured out why that is?
I mean what are the odds.
Anonymous
02/27/2024 19:09
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous
02/27/2024 18:41
Subject: GA Case
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Fani is arrogant, prideful, dishonest and thinks she can talk publicly about getting Trump off the ballot, at a church full of hatred, she needs to step down and be erased from the Bar of Georgia never to serve publicly again - shameful.
She is my hero. A strong educated Black woman that racist conservatives fear so much they are desperately trying to smear her with anything in the hope that something sticks. It won't. She will win!
+1